Monthly Archive: May 2016

Lana Rhoades interracial fun









lana rhoades hardcore interracial fucking blacke

lana rhoades hardcore interracial fucking blacke

lana rhoades hardcore interracial fucking blacke

lana rhoades hardcore interracial fucking blacke


Australia: George Christensen labels academic a ‘pedophilia advocate’ over controversial Safe Schools anti-bullying program

more tales from the anti-heterosexual left

Conservative Nationals MP George Christensen has accused an academic he’s labelled a ‘pedophilia advocate’ of being linked to the controversial Safe Schools program.

The backbencher, a staunch opponent of the controversial anti-bullying schools program, is among a group of coalition MPs who have written to the prime minister calling on him to suspend its federal funding.

He used parliamentary privilege on Wednesday to name Gary Dowsett, the deputy director of La Trobe University’s Sex, Health and Society section, of being behind the anti-bullying program.

‘I think it would shock many parents to know that a pedophilia advocate is overseeing the organisation that came up with the Safe Schools program,’ he told parliament.

Read more:
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook



here is the proof that Gary Dowsett is degenerate pedophile leftist.


he defends the right of “pedophiles and their young lovers”








Feminism and ‘Strong Delusion’

Feminism and ‘Strong Delusion’


Posted on | May 30, 2016 | 4 Comments


One of the things you notice about feminists, if you pay attention, is how many of them lack basic self-awareness. It seems unfair to accuse them of hypocrisy because it seems they cannot perceive the contradictions of their arguments, which are apparent to anyone outside the feminist cult. We often behold in feminism the neurotic psychology of self-justifying rationalizations, scapegoating and projection. Furthermore, because their worldview is essentially paranoid — a fear-based belief system that relies on an imaginary patriarchal conspiracy — feminists conjure up phantom threats with which to do battle. Consider the claims of Valerie Tarico:

Sexual intimacy and pleasure are some of humanity’s most cherished experiences. The so-called “best things in life” include natural beauty, fine dining, the arts, thrilling adventures, creative pursuits and community service. But love and orgasms are among the few peak experiences that are equally available to rich and poor, equally sweet to those whose lives are going according to plan and to many whose dreams are in pieces.
Religious conservatives think that these treasured dimensions of the human experience should be available to only a privileged few people whose lives fit their model: male-dominated, monogamous, heterosexual pairs who have pledged love and contractual marriage for life. . . .
To be clear, I’m not saying that Christianity’s sex rules are only a function of patriarchal Christian privilege. During the Iron Age, from whence Christianity’s sex rules got handed down, society was organized around kin groups, and the endlessly warmongering clans of the Ancient Near East were more at risk of extinction than overpopulation. Legally enforced monogamy created lines of inheritance and social obligation, clarifying how neighbors should be treated and who could be enslaved.
Also, hetero sex necessarily carried the risk of pregnancy, which made it adaptive to welcome resultant pregnancies. Children do best in stable, nurturing families and communities, and in the Ancient Near East, “No marriage? No sex!” may have served to protect the well-being of mothers and children as well as the social power of patriarchal men. But in today’s mobile, pluralistic societies with modern contraceptive options and social safety nets, God’s self-appointed sex police have little credible excuse save their owncompelling need to bully and boss and stay on top.
It should come as no surprise that Church authorities want an exclusive license to grant “legitimate” sexual privileges. . . .
The ways in which God’s Self-Appointed Sex Police try to obstruct intimacy and orgasms are legion. . . .

You can read the whole thing, but you get the drift here. Along with her simplistic anthropology — locating the source of “patriarchal Christian privilege” in the Iron Age in the “Ancient Near East” — Tarico also provides a simplistic sociology in which “mobile, pluralistic societies with modern contraceptive options and social safety nets” have transcended these allegedly primitive “sex rules.” However, when we consider the basic procreative function of sex, the need for “stable, nurturing families and communities” has remained unchanged by modernity. Before there can be a “pluralistic society” with all the features Tarico describes, there must first be human life — children must be conceived, born and raised to adulthood — and it is therefore harmful to sneer dismissively at the family unit (and its attendant “sex rules”) as an obsolete remnant of a primitive past. Consider this list of states, ranked by total fertility rate(TFR, average lifetime births per woman, calculated on 2014 birth rates):

Utah ……………………. 2.33
South Dakota ……….. 2.27
North Dakota ………. 2.24
Alaska …………………. 2.19
Nebraska …………….. 2.16

Connecticut …………. 1.63
Vermont ……………… 1.63
New Hampshire …… 1.58
Massachusetts ……… 1.58
Rhode Island ……….. 1.56

On average, women in conservative, religious Utah have 49% more babies than do women in liberal, secular Rhode Island. Whatever other socioeconomic or demographic differences there may be between the high-fertility and low-fertility states, we see that the “Birth Dearth” (asBen Wattenberg called it) is most evident in liberal New England.

You will perhaps not be surprised to learn that Valerie Tarico supports population control as a solution to climate change, because more babies mean more carbon emissions. Unfortunately for the Gaia-worshipping “green” cult, however, the world’s most prolific baby-makers are unlikely to be reading their arguments.

Top Ten Countries by Total Fertility Rate
(Average lifetime births per woman)

  1. Niger …………………….. 6.76
  2. Burundi ………………… 6.09
  3. Mali ……………………… 6.06
  4. Somalia ………………… 5.99
  5. Uganda ………………… 5.89
  6. Burkina Faso ………… 5.86
  7. Zambia …………………. 5.72
  8. Malawi …………………. 5.60
  9. Angola …………………. 5.37
  10. Afghanistan …………. 5.33

Probably the folks in Burundi and Burkina Faso don’t worry too much about their carbon emissions. Meanwhile, in the First World . . .

Total Fertility Rates for
Selected Industrial Nations

South Korea …………… 1.25
Japan …………………….. 1.40
Greece ……………………. 1.42
Italy ……………………….. 1.43
Germany ………………… 1.44
Austria …………………… 1.46
Spain ……………………… 1.49
Switzerland ……………. 1.55
Canada ………………….. 1.59
Denmark ……………….. 1.73
Australia ………………… 1.77
Belgium …………………. 1.78
Netherlands …………… 1.78
United States …………. 1.87

The demographic collapse of industrialized societies, due to their abnormally low birth rates, is a very serious social problem.

“Europe needs many more babies to avert a population disaster” was the headline on a Guardian article in August 2015, and if the problem is not quite so bad in the United States, perhaps we can thank the Iron Age “sex rules” of “patriarchal Christian privilege” that Valerie Tarico deplores.

Yet who is playing “self-appointed sex police” in our society? Where do we see those with a “compelling need to bully and boss and stay on top”?


It is feminists who are the “sex police” on America’s university campuseswhere, backed by the power of the federal government, they are implementing new laws and policies that deprive students of basic rights in the name of fighting a non-existent “rape epidemic.”

Is America suffering from too much marriage and monogamy, as Valerie Tarico’s argument implies, or is the exact opposite true? Aren’t most of the problems that feminists criticize as “rape culture” the product of a society where random hookups are commonplace and where “sex rules” — the social standards and customs surrounding sexuality — are in a state of chaos and confusion? In a society where dating apps like Tinder and OKCupid make it easy to find partners for casual sex encounters, young people in the 21st century do not lack sexual freedom. What they do lack are meaningful and committed relationships, the kind that those allegedly primitive Iron Age “sex rules” helped protect. We see that Valerie Tarico’s paranoid fear of “patriarchal Christian privilege” has led her into a counterfactual belief system — exactly as the Bible warned.

“And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.”
II Thessalonians 2:11-12 (KJV)

In 1973, radical feminist Mary Daly proclaimed the “spiritual dimension of feminist consciousness” in a movement that manifested itself “not only as Antichrist but also as Antichurch,” as a “rising woman-consciousness” unleashing chaos and terror by destroying the “Christocentric cosmos.” This deliberate destruction of Christian belief — “the myths of patriarchy,” in Daly’s phrase — obviously would have enormous consequences. What sort of culture would we expect to emerge in a society that rejects the divine authority of “Thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13) and other biblical commandments? Oddly enough, we may cite here the testimony of lesbian feminist Suzanne Pharr:

According to the FBI, there are several thousand women killed by their husbands and boyfriends every year. This number does not include the great numbers of women killed by rapists on the street and in their homes. . . .
Men beat, rape and kill women because they can; that is, because they live in a society that gives permission to the hatred of women.

So she wrote in “Hate Violence Against Women,” an essay included in the 1993 Women’s Studies textbook Feminist Frameworks. Is it true that we now “live in a society that gives permission to the hatred of women”? What sort of madness is this? Only in a society that has ceased to value women’s unique role in the creation of human life could this kind of violent “hatred of women” flourish, and what kind of fool would dare attack human life at its very source? Oh, wait . . .

“Marriage means rape and lifelong slavery.”
Ti-Grace Atkinson, 1969

Pregnancy is barbaric. . . .
“Moreover, childbirth hurts. And it isn’t good for you. . . .
“Reproduction of the species cost women dearly. . . . Women were the slave class that maintained the species in order to free the other half for the business of the world.”
Shulamith Firestone, The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution (1970)

“Women’s oppression is based in the fact that she reproduces the species. . . .
“In terms of the oppression of women, heterosexuality is the ideology of male supremacy.”
Margaret Small, “Lesbians and the Class Position of Women,” in Lesbianism and the Women’s Movement, edited by Nancy Myron and Charlotte Bunch (1975)

“The first condition for escaping from forced motherhood and sexual slavery is escape from the patriarchal institution of marriage.”
Alison M. Jaggar, Feminist Politics and Human Nature (1988)

“I don’t particularly like babies. They are loud and smelly and, above all other things, demanding . . . time-sucking monsters with their constant neediness. . . . Nothing will make me want a baby. . . . This is why, if my birth control fails, I am totally having an abortion.”
Amanda Marcotte, March 2014

Feminists condemn marriage as slavery and reject motherhood as oppression, and denounce babies as “time-sucking monsters.” Do they imagine their radical worldview will have no negative consequences? What did feminists expect their death cult ideology would produce?

When Valerie Tarico celebrates abortion as a “blessing,” do she believe that her hateful arguments against life itself will not undermine morality? Doesn’t feminism, by inciting murderous hatred toward the innocent in the name of “choice,” undermine the moral basis of kindness and respect toward others? Yet those in the grip of “strong delusion” quickly lose touch with reality and succumb to all manner of wickedness and folly.

Valerie Tarico praises Satanism, she accuses pro-lifers of “penis worship,”and promotes transgenderism. And have I neglected to mention perhaps the ultimate irony, that Valerie Tarico has a Ph.D. in psychology?

I was 26, in the last stage of my PhD program . . . at the University of Washington. . . .
I said to the god in my head, “I’m not making excuses for you anymore. I quit.” And just like that, God was gone.

When confronted by such a claim, logic requires us to point out that, if God exists, His existence is independent of any individual’s belief. Facts are facts, and you are free to believe whatever you want, but your belief does not alter the facts. The truth is still true. Furthermore, nature abhors a vacuum and, in consequence of the modern assault on Christianity, we constantly see proof of a familiar phenomenon: “When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.”

Valerie Tarico encourages hatred toward Christians in the name of “science,” and encourages hatred toward men in the name of “feminism.” It is useless to argue with fanatical atheists, because arguments require respect for facts and logic, and their hatred is wholly irrational. They are under “strong delusion” and find “pleasure in unrighteousness.”

Man Decided To Live As A Goat Because Life As A Human Got Too Stressful

how is this different from transgenderism, White Woman Rachel Dolezal thinking she is a black woman? etc


Man Decided To Live As A Goat Because Life As A Human Got Too Stressful


I’m fairly certain we’ve covered this before. Maybe last year, maybe not. Either way, you guys need to know about it.

Society is encouraging us to embrace bizarre behavior. More so than usual. Men can use women’s bathrooms,grown men are living double lives as dogs and this guy became a goat.

Completely normal. All of it.

Thomas Thwaites began to live as a goat because “everyday life” got  “so stressful” and he “needed a break.”

One day, he was walking a friend’s dog and thought, “Gee. That dog looks happy. Maybe if I act like an animal, I’ll be happy too.”


“One day I was walking with the dog of a friend and I noticed that the dog just seemed really happy about life, without any worries, and I thought to myself it would be really great to be you for a day,” Thwaites  said.


So he devised a plan. While the dog looked happy, he knew he couldn’t live as one because he’s not a big fan of meat. He seriously considered becoming an elephant but later decided against it because elephants “seem to have the same problems we do – they get sad, they get upset and they can even suffer from post-traumatic stress. That was exactly the sort of thing I was trying to get away from.”

Eventually, it hit him. A goat! Of course!

He applied for a university grant to study goat psychology, because he couldn’t just become a goat. Duh. He had to understand them. He also managed to get his hands on prosthetic “goat legs” and a fake goat stomach so he could “secretly spit chewed up grass inside without giving the game away to his new hircine chums.”

“I could then strap this bag to my torso and spit chewed up grass into one opening and suck the cultured microbes and volatile fatty acids out another opening like a milkshake, so I can digest them in my true stomach and live off grass in the Alps like a goat,” Thwaites said.

Mmmm. Sounds appetizing.

With that, he packed his bags and moved to Switzerland to live among the goats





Feminist Current calling for male genocide

Feminists calling for male genocide since 1892





Lori Day “What can be done? Well, I’ve decided the Earth needs a Mandemic. The human herd must be culled, and it’s time for buck season”


Lori Day is an educational psychologist, consultant and parenting coach with Lori Day Consulting in Newburyport, MA


Lori Day, Male genocide advocate



Meghan Murphy “Yet you think we SHOULDN’T kill ’em off with some kind of virus?”




Campus Censorship is holding women back

A survey has revealed that female students are more likely to support campus censorship than their male peers. Keeping Schtum, a report by the Higher Education Policy Institute, found that 16 per cent more women support Safe Space policies and the banning of tabloid newspapers than men. Men are more likely to support unfettered freedom of speech on campus.

That a significant proportion of female students is willingly supporting censorship is very depressing. But it’s hardly surprising. The vast majority of censorship on campus is aimed at protecting women from offence. spiked’s 2016 Free Speech University Rankings (FSUR) found that almost a third of UK universities banned the Sun and the Daily Star, as part of the No More Page 3 campaign, and 25 banned the controversial pop song ‘Blurred Lines’. All of this is done in the name of cleansing campus of ‘demeaning’ representations of women.

Women’s autonomy has been hugely undermined. Forget the in loco parentisrestrictions of the Sixties – female students today aren’t even trusted to hear a racy joke without falling to pieces. The FSUR found that 33 per cent of universities and students’ unions have ‘zero tolerance’ policies prohibiting jokes, cat-calling and even ‘inappropriate sexual noises’. Women aren’t even trusted to conduct their social lives without rules and regulations.

These protective measures treat women like children, incapable of handling the trials and tribulations of adult life by themselves. And all of it has been fuelled by contemporary feminism, which paints campus as a uniquely dangerous place for women and promotes the bizarre idea that the first step towards gender equality is women insisting they are vulnerable. This is, of course, nonsense. For all the fearmongering about campus rape culture, universities are among the safest places in the country. But in a climate where cat-calling is conflated with sexual assault, and rude jokes are considered traumatising, female students are constantly being encouraged to see themselves as perennial victims.

Why are so many women buying into this? This is not, as some myopic anti-feminists claim, a brainwashing of female students by nutty gender-studies professors. Campus censorship today is driven by a desire to protect those deemed vulnerable. It is this sentiment that drives the calls to censor everyone from UKIP, in order to protect ethnic minorities, to Germaine Greer, in order to protect trans people. The mainstreaming of victim culture on campus, and the accompanying idea that you should never encounter difficult or oppositional ideas, feeds this censorious trend. As the biggest and most significant ‘embattled’ group, women are constantly told that they need to be protected from sexist speech and ideas. Understandably, more women are being drawn into this way of thinking.

We must challenge it. Young women today have the world at their feet. Yet while they should be enjoying their freedom to the full, they are being encouraged to dwell on their own victimhood. This makes a mockery of women’s liberation. Previous gains for women, including getting into what were once male-only universities, were won through a commitment to freedom and autonomy. Young women in the past fought for the freedom to conduct their lives as they saw fit – to say whatever they liked and to sleep with whomever they wanted. Campus identity politics turns all this on its head, insisting that women are vulnerable and weak. It’s time female students threw off this patronising logic once and for all; insisting on free speech for all would be a good place to start.

Ella Whelan is assistant editor at spiked.